Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #248723; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Murray and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [3114(1)]
Recoupment Between Equal Priority Insurers [3115(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
No-Fault Insurer Claims for Reimbursement: Insurer Equal Priority Reimbursement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant, holding that where a no-fault insurance policy specifically lists a person as a named insured as well as the business in which the person was a partner, that person is a named insured entitled to no-fault benefits. The policy at issue in this case was obtained to insure a fleet of used cars for a used car dealership. However, the policy stated that the named insureds were the partners doing business as the partnership. One of the partners was injured in an automobile accident. His no-fault insurer filed this action seeking partial reimbursement from defendant under §3115(2) of the act. Defendant denied liability, claiming it only insured the used cars, not the partners who owned the dealership. The trial court agreed and granted defendant summary disposition. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding, as a matter of law, that the partner was a named insured. In this regard, it stated:
“For purposes of MCL 500.3114(1), the phrase ‘the person named in the policy’ is synonymous with the term ‘named insured.’ . . . In Stoddard v Citizens Insurance Company [RB #2271], this Court held that an individual was a named insured where the policy set forth that individual’s name along with the name of the sole proprietorship he operated. Bailey is clearly listed as a named insured, both when listed along with the partnership and when listed without the partnership on the request for social security or federal employer identification. . . . Although aspects of the policy and the deposition testimony . . . suggest that the focus was on insuring the vehicles involved in the business partnership, the inclusion of Bailey as ‘Named Insured’ on the contract and as an ‘Insured Name’ on the request for social security or federal employer identification mandates the inclusion of the names of the individual partners, thus, extending coverage to those partners in their individual capacities. As a matter of law, we find that there is no ambiguity that Bailey was a ‘named insured.’ . . . We hold that Bailey was a named insured and, as a result, he was a ‘person named in the policy,’ for purposes of MCL 500.3114(1).”
